Michael Ignatieff on Canadian voters....
From today's Globe and Mail, Michael Ignatieff supposedly assails Bob Rae's strategy on appealing to progressive voters by saying the following:
"What Liberals need is someone who can run down the middle with a progressive message, and leave the NDP in their own particular ghetto," Mr. Ignatieff said in an interview.
NDP voters? Ghetto!?!?!!?? Did he seriously just say that?
Mark my words: Iggy is finished.
(A more thoughtful analysis to follow. I just can't friggen believe this guy!)
"What Liberals need is someone who can run down the middle with a progressive message, and leave the NDP in their own particular ghetto," Mr. Ignatieff said in an interview.
NDP voters? Ghetto!?!?!!?? Did he seriously just say that?
Mark my words: Iggy is finished.
(A more thoughtful analysis to follow. I just can't friggen believe this guy!)
posted by John Lennard at 6:46 AM
52 Comments:
The NDP certainly isn't downtown.
Iggy is right on this one!
Anther Iffy flip flop...this from the guy who's launch speak talked about taking the Party "back" to the Centre-left!
The Liberal Party is best when it takes a broad, non-ideological approach - that's what Canadians want. That's where most of them are.
That's exactly what attracted me to Rae in the first place. He is non-idological - in fact eschews that approach. That's why he is appealing broadly to Canadians across the country and particularly in Ontario. Ontarians like being in the centre. Bob Rae is the one that can reach back to those who moved away to the two polarized ideological parties when the Liberals temporarily lost their way.
Oh, let the posturing begin!
Glad to see Rae supporters are always willing to defend the NDP.
Ignatieff is right, like it or not.
By the way, our "new" government is giving mega bucks to Bombardier. Now it was Rae who coined the phrase "corporate welfare bums". Now, I'll be the says nothing as $20,000 of his donations come from Bombardier execs....hmmm, I'll bet he'll stay quiet on this one.
Rae's hypocracy is rearing it's ugly head.
I don't think its as big a deal as you think it is.
Glad anonymous @ 8:35 liked my post.
all a ghetto is an area where people live together, volutarily or involuntary.
From the italian word "borghetto" which means small neighbourhood.
Conjuring up some ethnic basis of attack on this would be well...cheap, and people will be able to see right through it. So calm down, simmer down, take a valium, or six, and get over yourself.
John, I do hope you run for office one day. You can be the Liberal Jason Kenney
The honourable member for Mock Outrage and Posturing.
mr lennard
respectfully michael is bang on this..with the ndp at 15% on the recent poll..say rae wins we gain about 2-3% of the ndp vote and lose about 7 - 10 points on the libeal vote of all the small l liberals out there...
...you have a lot to learn mr lennard..also what is rae's position on afghanistan...i thought he wanted us tobring down harper on the softwood lumber deal......hmmm rae offers absolutely nothing!!!!
Winnipeg Liberal - yes, I always read your site (I live in Ontario) and I lived through those Rae years and your site's info is absolutely accurate and I'm glad you're pointing this stuff out. I repeated (sort of) what you said in case someone has read it.
Definition of Ghetto:
1) a part of a city, sep. a slim area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
2) (hist)an area of a city in which Jews were required to live
AND 3)
A SITUATION IN WHICH A GROUP IS SEGREGATED BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION OR ITS "OWN PREFERENCE".
By definition, the statement is not out of line at all.
Anon: 8:35
Whoops, typo definition of ghetto should have "slum" area (not slim area.)
Sorry
Anon 8:35
It seems that Lennard (deliberately?) has a very limited understanding of the English language.
I guess he's used to listening to Rae pontificate in his usual blabber saying and committing to absolutely nothing.
Oh, this is too funny. John Lennard says an analysis will follow.
Lennard just blew it - he doesn't understand English.
This is just too funny.
The reason a "more thoughtful analysis" will "follow" is because Lennard hasn't received his marching orders from Alex Swann (Rae's communications ferret) yet.
What? You think Lennard finds this stuff on his own?
Hell no. An e-mail went out this morning from Rae campaign HQ about this quote, telling people to talk it up. Iggy attacked their guy hard and they're trying to fight back.
rae
cannot fight back...b/c during the entire leadership campaign..he has not offered anything...if us liberals havenot figured out...rae is like a figure skater and we are waiting for him to do and say something difficult..take a position and take a stand but he won't ...he knows when he does that his true colors will show....
...i thought we needed someone who would take us in a new direction and offer fresh ideas , pragmatic ideas and new direction...what does rae offer no new ideas, no progamatic ideas, and direction that is about thirty years old......oh well...have fun knocking on doors in the next election trying to explain to voters why they should vote for BOB RAE...think about that one!!!!!
"Slum" would be more appropriate.
A mental slum actually.
I take it you're not a fan.
Would it be better if that political tranvesite, Bob Rae, ran "down the middle with a progressive message, and left the NDP in their own particular ghetto"? Or Joe Volpe (better analogy)?
Is your concern:
1. That someone has spoken the truth about the NDP's place in the Canadian political scene?
2. That it was Iggy who spoke the words?
3. That the remark is designed to counter the slim "benefit" that Rae might draw one or two NDPers to the Liberal fold?
Hard to tell from your faux outrage. You MUST be more specific as a blogger, you know. Leave the wishy-washy to Liberal politicians and other guttersnipes.
I would call this attack lame, but I'm of being called a bigot too.
Isn't the student district in Kingston called the "ghetto?"
And where is this "slim" ghetto and how much are houses going for there?
. . . AFRAID of being called a bigot too, natch.
how about this..mr lennard...if you pick one word out of all of mr ignatieff;s comments this morning...
does that mean you find michaels comments on bob correct or not..i.e. the gist of michael's comments are that rae is a left of centre politician and that a lot of voters would be turned off by bob and that bob's record like it or not is not something to brag about..i know he saved the toronto orchestra...great wonderful but he then destroyed the ontario economy...
so if you are going to attack it is funny, you will not attack the substance of michaels comments...and do you know why...b/c michael is correct!!!!!! bang on!!! right!!!! ..the ekos poll had 30% of greens voting/ considering to vote for michael, and he attracts bloc voters...now rae attracts some dippers...but how many centre l liberal voters will be scared away ...the entire ontario liberal base!!!!
When you can't address the logic of an argument the first refuge is to attack the language.
The substance of Ignatieff's argument is entirely correct:
i) Bob Rae has intentionally run a campaign devoid of ideas.
ii) Rae believes it is enough to wake up in the morning and be Bob Rae.
iii) This same strategy worked disasterously in Ontario, where Bob jettisonned his ideas as soon as he won an office he did not expect to win and was clearly not prepared to win.
iv) The NDP has a thin voter base from which to draw. Victory for the Liberals will come from winning back voters in Quebec and winning seats in suburban Canada. Neither of these places are NDP strongholds.
But please, continue to hyperventilate about colourful language.
peter
your comment is bang on....john your blog comment this morning is highly disappointing and if this is the best you can offer...ouch!!!!
rae can not and should not and hopefully will not be elected leader of the liberal party....it would be a disaster..
Is Iggy done? Yet again????
It must be seriously depressing for him to be constantly determined toast/finished/done/history so many times by the Rae gang only.
And yet, they continue to feel the need to attack him and only him for some odd unknown reason. Puzzling.
Was it not Mr. Ignatieff who said in the early days of this campaign that the Liberal Party needs to "situate itself solidly on the centre left" of the political spectrum? Now he's criticising Bob Rae for supposedly "tilting left" and appealing to progressive voters? Um, ok...
This post has been removed by the author.
Sorry John, but that dog won't hunt. It is consistent for Ignatieff to argue that our social policy should be centre left and then argue that that policy can appeal to the largest broadstream of Canadians, especially given that the plurality of Canadian voters rest at roughly that spot on the political spectrum.
In Rae's case, however, it's just silly and illogical to argue that having the most appeal among NDP voters will lead to government. There are just not enough votes there for that to happen.
This, of course, is quite apart from the fact that Rae has run a classic politician's campaign: say nothing and mean what you say even less.
I thought that Linda Diebel's column on Saturday was enlightening. When asked to account for his failure as premier - and it was a failure - his response was "Not everyone gets elected premier, and that's something." It has never occurred to him, I think, that there is a point to winning beyond winning itself.
And do you think he's learned his lesson? I am unconvinced, and give as evidence his repeated answer to the question about why he wants to be Prime Minister: "To beat Stephen Harper." Aside from the statement being temporally nonsensical, it speaks to his motivation, I think. He wants to win an election to show that he is better. But the measure of a politician isn't winning, it's doing something when you do. Maybe he's learned that. Maybe not. But, either way, Ignatieff is right today on the merits of his argument. Whether or not he used a word you don't understand.
I've voted for the NDP in the past, and may do so again in the future. I don't feel like an ex ghetto-dweller. And how do you appeal to Green voters (as Iggy claims to want to do) without running left? Are they beyond left or something?
Another thumbs down to Iggy.
The environment is neither a left nor right issue. The Conservative Party is the second choice of 36% of Green Party supporters. So saying that we need to go left to appeal to the Green is not supported by any evidence.
There are left and centre-left swing voters willing to vote Liberal or NDP, and there are right
and centre-right swing voters willing to vote Liberal or Con (much more in the latter group obviously).
The bulk of the NDP voters are indeed in a political ghetto. Content to vote on rigid ideological grounds, kick out dissenting thought, make no effort to speak to all Canadians and ensure they stay out of power. Forever in opposition which is why it is no surprise that it seems like Rae is campaigning to be Leader of the Opposition (critic only and not a leader) instead of aiming to be PM.
big deal - its nto surprising that Bob's people are defending the NDP here... but seriously Bob's logic has to be called into question. The NDP has garnered around 17% in the last several elections - even if Bob pulls a bunch of NDP voters to the Liberals it is only going to add up to 1 or 2%
Iggy is right here - appeal to the centre where the most votes are not the fringes where Bob seems to think we should go.
The Libs. should not be NDP lite just as they shouldn't be Conservative lite - Bob would make us irrelevant
aaa, hmmm, ah let me see...Rae...Layton, NDP, hmmm
oh ya, make the rich pay.
Problem solved, next please...
Every candidate in this leadership race is "Centre-left" on social issues, so that is a non starter.
Ignatieff is right about this.
Do you fight to take a chunk of votes that only represent 17% of the total popular vote in Canada?
Or
Do you fight to take a chunk of the votes that represent almost 25% of the popular vote (Small L, middle of road individuals who have no loyalties to political parties?)
Rae would definitely alienate the latter group.
hilarious how Ignatieff supporters are so insistent of looking at the exact definition of the word "ghetto", when just a feww weeks ago they were saying that the exact meaning of the term "war crime" was irrelevant... that we should have known what Iggy meant... well this time I think we all know what he meant...and it isn't pretty.
Are Canadians Good Enough For Michael Ignatieff??
well certainly not those who vote NDP...
John is right... Ignatieff is done...
Id also like to add.
Bob Rae's tactic for appealing to the center of the party will be to introduce John Manley (percieved as being to the "right" ) on the convention floor and have him endorse Rae during Rae's final speech.
So he can only show that he is in any way a centrist through the endorsement by others? not by his own words and actions?
Skip - it WAS NOT Winnipeg Liberal that complimented himself, it was I, Anon 8:35 and my name is Sandi.
Paranoia is setting in amongst the Rae fans.
Settle down kids
Another word "Lennard" doesn't understand is progressive and difference between it an "socialism".
Rae is sort of "pink" so to speak.
Ignatieff is wrong on two counts. Giving up on Dippers is lunacy if the Liberal Party wants to win a majority government. They are a huge pool of voters, with many ready to be pried off and to vote for a Liberal government in order to avoid a majority Tory one.
Secondly, Ignatieff is anything but progressive in his militaristic, America-loving, imperialist-supporting views. His stance on Iraq, coercive interrogations, Qana, among others, are not by any stretch of the imagination in line with mainstream Liberal values, nor are they progressive. He is closer to Harper on these issues, and will not attract hardcore Tory votes with these policies (they will stick with Harper rather than vote for Harper-lite).
Ignatieff just does not get it.
And how do you appeal to Green voters (as Iggy claims to want to do) without running left? Are they beyond left or something?
Because Ignatieff's Green plan has major elements that are similar to the position taken by the Green Party in the last election, the biggest one being:
- Carbon consumption tax, which would be part of a larger plan to transform the way our government collects tax, based more on consumption then income.
I voted Green on this issue alone in the last election, and I consider myself to the right of most in the Liberal Party.
That is the great thing about the Green Party; they are not composed of crazy socialists who love in la la land. Its why they attract voters across all spectrums.
And yes, Bob Rae's "convention" surprise is John Manley.
It is a given now that the race will finish off with an Ignatieff and Rae (aided by Kennedy) showdown. Both sides are preparing for this.
you now what irony of this is i do not remember the ndp being nice to us during the last election...canvassing here in trinity spadina....the ndp under olivia chow spread rumours, untruths about ianno, they used every dirty trick in the book......read the toronto life story a few months back...but that is not ok..if we attack bob's friends at the ndp ...we are bad all bad ...such irony!!
ask pat martin or judy (her last name is a mouth full) how they describe liberals... hmmm makes me wonder why some liberals are supporting bob rae maybe just wannabe dippers...
wow! for such a short post, it certainly has attracted alot of attention. i woke up, googled ignatieff news, and read the article. iggy really messed up the talking points...surprise, surprise. saw david mcguinty deliver them last week and they almost sounded plausible...unfortunately they're not supported by polling data, but they made for a persuasive fallacious argument nonetheless.
in case anyone missed the last election, nearly a third of the ndp's votes were "borrowed" from the liberal party. looks like iggy doesn't want them back. btw 30% of 17% is over 5% of the national vote (not 1% or 2%)...a fairly substantial voting bloc in my estimation. indeed, 33% + 5%= 38%...that's almost majority territory people. interesting that iggy supporters (read spinners) think that re-capturing that 30% of newdippers would force us to abandon the centre...chretien succesfully held those voters and the cente. your fallacious logic cannot withstand empirical reality.
i am getting sick of this john kerry-come-lately-to-canada, flip-flopping and making all liberals look like fools. whatever happened to running centre-left...oh right the cente-left thinks you're extreme-right.
i want a leader who can speak for all canadians. not someone who castigates a large portion of them for living in ideological ghettos. ghettos??? nice language, real progressive.
the only reason i didn't vote ndp last election, and begrudgingly voted liberal was to keep the conservatives in minority territory...well, that and the fact that layton brought down the gov't. martin lost the cente, and particularly the center-left with his stance on invading iraq and bmd...both later recanted and waffled. time to take it back and govern.
skeena lib:
;-)...lol...need i say more...
indeed, 33% + 5%= 38%...that's almost majority territory people. interesting that iggy supporters (read spinners) think that re-capturing that 30% of newdippers would force us to abandon the centre...chretien succesfully held those voters and the cente. your fallacious logic cannot withstand empirical reality
Sorry, Chrétien had a history of being a pragmatist, and the NDP vote was between 15-17% consistently through the 90's. So how did he capture 3 majority governments? He took PC voters who fled a decimated party but were scared of the Reform Party. And when the PC party looked like it was rebuilding itself, Chrétien faced a divided right.
NDP support had no major effect on Chretien’s success. You need to look at the numbers.
"When you can't address the logic of an argument the first refuge is to attack the language.
The substance of Ignatieff's argument is entirely correct:
i) Bob Rae has intentionally run a campaign devoid of ideas.
ii) Rae believes it is enough to wake up in the morning and be Bob Rae.
iii) This same strategy worked disasterously in Ontario, where Bob jettisonned his ideas as soon as he won an office he did not expect to win and was clearly not prepared to win.
iv) The NDP has a thin voter base from which to draw. Victory for the Liberals will come from winning back voters in Quebec and winning seats in suburban Canada. Neither of these places are NDP strongholds.
But please, continue to hyperventilate about colourful language."
well said
The voters who left us to "lend" their votes to the NDP are a big reason why we lost the last election. OF COURSE we need them back.
Iggy doesn't even have the stats to back up his claims about bringing in centrist voters - all polls show that no one is more likely to vot ewith us if he leads the party.
Skip - it WAS NOT Winnipeg Liberal that complimented himself, it was I, Anon 8:35 and my name is Barrie.
Paranoia is setting in amongst the Rae fans.
Settle down kids
Finally people are taking it to Rae. Showing just how much of a joke it is that he is even running. Truth is his candidacy is an insult to every Liberal who has door knocked and donated and pounded signs for the last 100 years.
Thats what ticks me off the most, that this guy just come in and the press take him seriously, notice I said the press because I dont know ANY Liberals who do, this guy is all air war
what worries me isn't what Iggy said, it's the chronic inability to throw a punch.
Looks like John found out today what it was like to be PWNED.
Its ok man. I've taken a few floggings before too...it's actually quite fun.
I'll agree. NDP is not downtown. Remember at one time, downtown voters used to vote Tory (Ie: Tory Toronto). Majority of them vote Liberal. Look at Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
The NDP won 15% of the vote in 2004 and 17% in 2006.
We want to kill ourselves over 2%?
When you're alone
And life is making you lonely,
You can always go downtown
When you've got worries,
All the noise and the hurry
Seems to help, I know, downtown
Just listen to the music of the traffic in the city
Linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty
How can you lose?
The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares so go
Downtown, things'll be great when you're
Downtown, no finer place for sure
Downtown, everything's waiting for you
(Downtown)
Don't hang around
And let your problems surround you
There are movie shows downtown
Maybe you know
Some little places to go to
Where they never close downtown
Just listen to the rhythm of a gentle bossa nova
You'll be dancing with 'em too before the night is over
Happy again
The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares so go
Downtown where all the lights are bright,
Downtown, waiting for you tonight
Downtown, you're gonna be alright now
(Downtown, downtown)
Downtown
(Downtown)
And you may find somebody kind to help and understand you,
Someone who is just like you and needs a gentle hand to
Guide them along
So, maybe I'll see you there
We can forget all our troubles, forget all our cares and go
Downtown, things'll be great when you're
Downtown, don't wait a minute more
Downtown, everything's waiting for you
Downtown (downtown) downtown (downtown)
Downtown (downtown) downtown (downtown)
"A more thoughtful analysis to follow"...when?
Post a Comment
<< Home